Three Tesla owners across the United States have sued the California automaker—saying that some of the main safety features that they expected to have when they purchased their cars in late 2016 are "vaporware." They accuse Tesla of fraud and deceptive trade practices, among other allegations.

Further Reading

In the proposed class-action lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in California on Wednesday, attorneys representing the trio of men argue that "Tesla has not released truly functional software for its Standard Safety Features or Enhanced Autopilot." (That new software package is known as AP2.)

In one example, a Colorado man, Dean Sheikh, bought a Tesla S 60D in late November, picking it up just over two weeks later.

According to the lawsuit, Sheikh not only believed that he would imminently be receiving a new software update to enable the "Enhanced Autopilot" feature, but that it would also include the activation of other safety features that commonly exist on many other cars, including Automatic Emergency Braking.

"Dean had no intention to buy a car that does not have AEB; it was standard on his prior Audi A7 and was a 'must have' on Dean’s feature list for a new car," the complaint states.

…the system operated in an unpredictable manner, sometimes veering out of lanes, lurching, slamming on the brakes for no reason, and failing to slow or stop when approaching other vehicles and obstacles. This rendered the Autopilot system unsafe to operate. The suite of Standard Safety Features that Dean was promised remain inoperable, including Automatic Emergency Braking, side collision warnings, auto-wipers, and auto high beams.

…

The Enhanced Autopilot Features are simply too dangerous to be used, and are therefore, completely useless notwithstanding the $5,000 premium that Dean paid for Enhanced Autopilot.

The two other plaintiffs offered similar claims.

“Inaccurate”

A Tesla spokesperson sent Ars a corporate statement that dismissed the lawsuit as a "disingenuous attempt to secure attorney’s fees posing as a legitimate legal action, which is evidenced by the fact that the suit misrepresents many facts."

The statement goes on to explain that the Enhanced Autopilot software "is a product that would roll out incrementally over time."

It ends with this line: "The inaccurate and sensationalistic view of our technology put forth by this group is exactly the kind of misinformation that threatens to harm consumer safety."

It remains unclear exactly how many Teslas currently on the road have the latest self-driving hardware sensors (HW2) and the AP2 software. When Ars tested a Model S P100Ds in February 2017, the Autopilot functionality was disabled.

Tesla did not respond to Ars’ question as to whether this software had been rolled out to all Teslas everywhere, and if not, why not.

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is the Senior Business Editor at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

Hey, Tesla's doing well, they need to keep their reputation. Let's file a suit that trashes their products so they will settle before the major publicity kicks in. Fantastic return on investment for a few hours of a lawyer's time.

If they won't play, we can always drop the suit. Just as well it's not like the UK where the loser pays the costs of both sides.

I still think they could have avoided a TON of headache by just not calling it autopilot. I know that what's there no is technically correctly called autopilot since it's comparable to current airplane autopilot, but it's not too hard to figure out that most of the public is going to take it as meaning the car completely autonomously driving itself.

So they filed a suit after 'agreeing' to beta test*? After all, isn't beta testing 'not as of yet fully functional software the way we intend it to be.' Any idiot nowadays who purchases or uses something that is 'promising' future features and expects those immediately then doesn't receive same as idiot thinks they should get them is, well, an idiot.

*Purchased with the promise of a future upgrade which would enable stated features but at an UNSPECIFIED date.

It would seem customers are disappointed that Tesla has note released their AP2 software yet. The deadline, December 2016, has passed without it being release and no word on when it will meet regulatory approval. Obviously frustrated customer who purchased a Tesla with the expectation of AP2 are feeing like they have been "taken for a ride" given the price tag. This is not unexpected. Customers just want more information on when it will be lunched, especially given the perception Tesla is spending resources on the model 3, and other products, at the expense of Model S and X owners.

I'll admit I'm a bit torn on this one. I have one of these cars. On the one hand, it's a great car, and it has improved (and continues to improve) greatly since I bought it. On the other hand, Tesla did take my money, and a not inconsiderable amount of it, up front for features that still haven't been delivered yet.

And those that have been added haven't always been reliable or stable. I've experienced repeated uncommanded braking after an update that came in March, and the headlights turn themselves on at completely random times (despite being manually turned off, not to auto) -- among other issues.

I don't know what sort of sales process these good gentlemen experienced, but I was definitely led to believe that these features would be available by the end of December (last year). Tesla has shown a pattern of over-promising and late delivery.

Given the choice, I wouldn't turn the car back in. It's still the best car I've ever owned. But maybe it's good that someone is lighting a fire under these folks.

Auto companies should really stop rolling out incremental autopilot features. People are beginning to expect the car to drive itself and then act like its a hassle to have to apply the brakes themselves so as not to rear-end the car in front of them. Until we have full-blown autonomous driving systems ready for deployment we should probably all assume we will still have to be in control 100% of the time, you know, just like cars have always been.

...*Purchased with the promise of a future upgrade which would enable stated features but at an UNSPECIFIED date....

Only, it wasn't an UNSPECIFIED date. The date was specified, repeatedly, by more than one person when I was engaging in the pre-sales dance with these folks. Too many people for it to have simply been somebody going off-script.

...*Purchased with the promise of a future upgrade which would enable stated features but at an UNSPECIFIED date....

Only, it wasn't an UNSPECIFIED date. The date was specified, repeatedly, by more than one person when I was engaging in the pre-sales dance with these folks. Too many people for it to have simply been somebody going off-script.

That I was not totally aware of.In that case there was a lack of much needed, specifically detailed instructions that should have been given and either wasn't or was simply ignored. These are car salesmen right?

I still think they could have avoided a TON of headache by just not calling it autopilot.

I still firmly believe they should rebrand it as "copilot," at least until such time it's at least level 3 self-driving. It still evokes the "autopilot" mystique, but the description is much closer to what it actually offers at this time.

Listen people, stop buying products on the promise of future software updates. It applies to phones and it sure as hell applies to cars.

The flip side is it is bad form for Tesla to sell "coming soon" features. Honestly Tesla is better than that. Ship it with the hardware and sell it as a post delivery upgrade if/when the feature becomes available. Then nobody would have anything to complain about.

I still think they could have avoided a TON of headache by just not calling it autopilot.

I still firmly believe they should rebrand it as "copilot," at least until such time it's at least level 3 self-driving. It still evokes the "autopilot" mystique, but the description is much closer to what it actually offers at this time.

I keep getting these images of an inflated pilot you have to blow up through a valve stem in his crotch. But then, maybe I'm just remembering some weird dream. Excuse me now, I have to go meet with the psychiatrist about my drinking problem...

I'll admit I'm a bit torn on this one. I have one of these cars. On the one hand, it's a great car, and it has improved (and continues to improve) greatly since I bought it. On the other hand, Tesla did take my money, and a not inconsiderable amount of it, up front for features that still haven't been delivered yet.

And those that have been added haven't always been reliable or stable. I've experienced repeated uncommanded braking after an update that came in March, and the headlights turn themselves on at completely random times (despite being manually turned off, not to auto) -- among other issues.

I don't know what sort of sales process these good gentlemen experienced, but I was definitely led to believe that these features would be available by the end of December (last year). Tesla has shown a pattern of over-promising and late delivery.

Given the choice, I wouldn't turn the car back in. It's still the best car I've ever owned. But maybe it's good that someone is lighting a fire under these folks.

A car that spontaneously brakes itself seems dangerous as hell. If even half the 'problems' listed in the lawsuit complaint are true how are Tesla's lawyers not pitching a fit about beta-testing car software on customer cars? I don't expect my car to slam on the brakes or swerve itself outside of my lane until the next patch.

Listen people, stop buying products on the promise of future software updates. It applies to phones and it sure as hell applies to cars.

The flip side is it is bad form for Tesla to sell "coming soon" features. Honestly Tesla is better than that. Ship it with the hardware and sell it as a post delivery upgrade if/when the feature becomes available. Then nobody would have anything to complain about.

Full disclosure: I own Tesla stock.

That has never been Tesla's MO. Hell, they take reservation deposits for a car that's 2+ years away. People forget that Tesla is still a startup. And they forget that they should give it the same skepticism when purchasing as any Kickstarter project.

You're not buying the product, you're funding the process (with a reward if they succeed).

Clear and compelling evidence that this country has WAY too many lawyers.

Think you meant clear and convincing. We don't compel lol.

It's amusing to see how lawyers are viewed here. Yeah we make $$$, but we also solve a lot of headaches. And we discuss cases based on our facts, so as to come to a compromise.

Product liability cases are different and I will concede that there is a money grab here. But as others have said, don't call it "auto pilot". That's over promising.

Well I must confess a bias when I see the BS created by John Steele, Charles Carreon and similar legal folk explicated in these forums. But then I suppose a lot of public perception of my profession is adversely colored by the gents at New England Compounding Center. Point taken (But its so FUN to bash lawyers!).

Clear and compelling evidence that this country has WAY too many lawyers.

Think you meant clear and convincing. We don't compel lol.

It's amusing to see how lawyers are viewed here. Yeah we make $$$, but we also solve a lot of headaches. And we discuss cases based on our facts, so as to come to a compromise.

Product liability cases are different and I will concede that there is a money grab here. But as others have said, don't call it "auto pilot". That's over promising.

I tend to find that lawyers operate on a separate ethical playing field from the rest of the public. This is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways, they may be human but they are fundamentally trained and financially backed to suppress the empathy portions of their brains to operate with a different adversarial ruleset than the rest of society is allowed. They are trained to pounce on mistakes but also as they get older, get trained quickly not to admit they are wrong even when it's the correct answer to a social injustice.

Most lawyers deserve neither thanks nor as much vitriol for what they do, they are as necessary to a functioning civilized society as ethical and adversarial journalists. But journalists also operate with an altered set of unwritten ethical rules that leads them to be perceived poorly by the public at large until and unless they reveal a major failure by a government or over-trusted corporation.

Free societies don't do well with the concept of necessary evils that are fundamentally tied to the cost of freedom. When they toss out those evils, they tend to lose the freedom along with it, and that includes the excessive financial compensation cloaked and justified in legalese. Remove the rock star compensation for law debates and administration and you quickly find the first person to gain the upper hand those lawyers were holding back now has their boot to your throat even more swiftly, making the abominably high wages for legal representation both necessary and out of the reach of most common wage earners.